	*************************************************
	*                                               *
	*          ONE-View report generation           *
	*                                               *
	*************************************************

[MAQAO] Info: Experiment configuration summary is available adding -dbg=1 in command line

* [MAQAO] Warning: Experiment directory /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/run/oneview_runs/defaults/gcc/oneview_results_1786614749 already exists and is reused.
           It can be replaced using --replace in the command line.
[MAQAO] Info: 
[MAQAO] Info: START THE APPLICATION PROFILING
[MAQAO] Info: -> RUNNING THE PROFILER...
[MAQAO] Info:   LPROF has already been run
[MAQAO] Info: STOP THE APPLICATION PROFILING
[MAQAO] Info: 
[MAQAO] Info: START FUNCTIONS AND LOOPS ANALYSIS ...
[MAQAO] Info: STOP FUNCTIONS AND LOOPS ANALYSIS ...
[MAQAO] Info: 
[MAQAO] Info: START THE REPORT GENERATION
[MAQAO] Info: -> ONE-VIEW EXPERIMENT DIRECTORY: /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/run/oneview_runs/defaults/gcc/oneview_results_1786614749


+====================================================================================================================+
+                                                    1  -  GLOBAL                                                    +
+====================================================================================================================+


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+                                             1.1  -  Experiment Summary                                             +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

  Application:			/beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/run/base_runs/defaults/gcc/exec
  Timestamp:			2026-08-13 11:52:29
  Universal Timestamp:		1786614749
  Experiment Type:		MPI; OpenMP; Throughput; 
  Machine:			isix07.benchmarkcenter.megware.com
  Architecture:			x86_64
  Micro Architecture:		GRANITE_RAPIDS
  Model Name:			Intel(R) Xeon(R) 6972P
  Cache Size:			491520 KB
  Number of Cores:		96
  OS Version:			Linux 5.14.0-687.31.1.el9_8.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Sat Aug 1 05:38:01 EDT 2026
  Compilation Options:		
		exec: GNU C++17 15.1.0 -mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -g -O3 -std=c++17 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fcf-protection=none -fopenmp 
  Number of processes observed:	6
  Number of threads observed:	192
  MAQAO version:		2026.1.0
  MAQAO build:			6d1be1d51c1e63266254997eb301734a7264775d::20260810-150026




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+                                               1.2  -  Global Metrics                                               +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

  Total Time:				39.87 s
  Max (Thread Active Time):		39.52 s
  Average Active Time:			39.32 s
  Activity Ratio:			99.6 %
  Average number of active threads:	189.328
  Affinity Stability:			99.7 %
  Time spent in analyzed loops:		94.6 %
  Time spent in analyzed innermost loops: 94.6 %
  Time spent in user code:		95.6 %
  Compilation Options Score:		50
  Array Access Efficiency:		93.7 %

   Potential Speedups
  ----------------------------------------------------
  Perfect Flow Complexity:		1.16
  Perfect OpenMP/MPI/Pthread/TBB:	1.03
  Perfect OpenMP/MPI/Pthread/TBB + Load Distribution:	1.04
  If No Scalar Integer:
      Potential Speedup:		1.05
      Nb Loops to get 80%:		4
  If FP Vectorized:
      Potential Speedup:		1.31
      Nb Loops to get 80%:		14
  If Fully Vectorized:
      Potential Speedup:		1.95
      Nb Loops to get 80%:		20
  If Only FP Arithmetic:
      Potential Speedup:		1.11
      Nb Loops to get 80%:		8




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+                                             1.3  -  Potential Speedups                                             +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

  If No Scalar Integer:
      Number of loops   | 1      | 9      | 18     | 26     | 35     | 
      Cumulated Speedup | 1.0121 | 1.0514 | 1.0514 | 1.0514 | 1.0514 | 
  Top 5 loops:
    exec - 209:	1.0121
    exec - 207:	1.0244
    exec - 285:	1.0354
    exec - 253:	1.0432
    exec - 234:	1.0474

  If FP Vectorized:
      Number of loops   | 1      | 9      | 18     | 26     | 35     | 
      Cumulated Speedup | 1.0261 | 1.1900 | 1.2864 | 1.3116 | 1.3116 | 
  Top 5 loops:
    exec - 253:	1.0261
    exec - 285:	1.0531
    exec - 209:	1.0745
    exec - 237:	1.0966
    exec - 234:	1.1193

  If Fully Vectorized:
      Number of loops   | 1      | 9      | 18     | 26     | 35     | 
      Cumulated Speedup | 1.0401 | 1.3381 | 1.7215 | 1.9377 | 1.9476 | 
  Top 5 loops:
    exec - 189:	1.0401
    exec - 285:	1.0781
    exec - 274:	1.1144
    exec - 253:	1.152
    exec - 207:	1.1899

  If Only FP Arithmetic:
      Number of loops   | 1      | 9      | 18     | 26     | 35     | 
      Cumulated Speedup | 1.0180 | 1.0944 | 1.1053 | 1.1053 | 1.1053 | 
  Top 5 loops:
    exec - 207:	1.018
    exec - 209:	1.0366
    exec - 285:	1.0499
    exec - 217:	1.0592
    exec - 220:	1.0686



+====================================================================================================================+
+                                                   2  -  SUMMARY                                                    +
+====================================================================================================================+


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+                                             2.1  -  EXPERIMENT QUALITY                                             +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

  [4 / 4] Application profile is long enough (39.52 s)
To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

  [3 / 3] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info
-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations.

  [3 / 3] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and
-fno-omit-frame-pointer is present
-fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

  [3 / 3] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.


  [0 / 3] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor
-march=x86-64 option is used but it is not specific enough to produce efficient code.
Architecture specific options are needed to produce efficient code for a specific processor ( -march=(target) ).

  [3 / 3] Optimization level option is correctly used


  [2 / 2] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.00 % of the execution time)
To have a representative profiling, it is advised that the category "Others" represents less than 20% of the execution
time in order to analyze as much as possible of the user code

  [1 / 1] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.


  [0 / 0] Fastmath not used
Consider to add ffast-math to compilation flags (or replace -O3 with -Ofast) to unlock potential extra speedup by
relaxing floating-point computation consistency. Warning: floating-point accuracy may be reduced and the compliance
to IEEE/ISO rules/specifications for math functions will be relaxed, typically 'errno' will no longer be set after
calling some math functions.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+                                                2.2  -  CODE QUALITY                                                +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

  [4 / 4] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (94.63%)
If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on
application performances.

  [4 / 4] Threads activity is good
On average, more than 98.61% of observed threads are actually active 

  [4 / 4] CPU activity is good
CPU cores are active 99.61% of time

  [4 / 4] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (6.20%), representing an hotspot for the application

  [4 / 4] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (94.57%)
If the time spent in analyzed innermost loops is less than 15%, standard innermost loop optimizations such as
vectorisation will have a limited impact on application performances.

  [4 / 4] Affinity is good (99.67%)
Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

  [3 / 3] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations
It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

  [3 / 3] Functions mostly use all threads
Functions running on a reduced number of threads (typically sequential code) cover less than 10% of application
walltime (3.00%)

  [3 / 3] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.05%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (94.57%)
Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop
optimization more complex

  [2 / 2] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations
BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining.

  [2 / 2] Less than 10% (0.31%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+                                               2.3  -  LOOPS OVERVIEW                                               +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

  Top 5 loops:
   + exec - 334 :
     analysis: Execution Time: 6 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 25.00 %
     Loop Computation Issues: 20
        [16] [SA] Presence of expensive FP instructions - Perform hoisting, change algorithm, use SVML or proper
            numerical library or perform value profiling (count the number of distinct input values). There are 4
            issues (= instructions) costing 4 points each.
        [4] [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize
            arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points.
     Data Access Issues: 2
        [0] [SA] Inefficient vectorization: more than 10% of the vector loads instructions are unaligned - When
            allocating arrays, don’t forget to align them. There are 0 issues ( = arrays) costing 2 points each
        [2] [SA] More than 20% of the loads are accessing the stack - Perform loop splitting to decrease pressure on
            registers. This issue costs 2 points.

   + exec - 285 :
     analysis: Execution Time: 5 % - Vectorization Ratio: 10.62 % - Vector Length Use: 13.60 %
     Loop Computation Issues: 14
        [8] [SA] Presence of expensive FP instructions - Perform hoisting, change algorithm, use SVML or proper
            numerical library or perform value profiling (count the number of distinct input values). There are 2
            issues (= instructions) costing 4 points each.
        [4] [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize
            arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points.
        [2] [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop
            splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points.
     Control Flow Issues: 2
        [2] [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked
            instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each.
     Data Access Issues: 14
        [4] [SA] Presence of constant non unit stride data access - Use array restructuring, perform loop interchange
            or use gather instructions to lower a bit the cost. There are 2 issues ( = data accesses) costing 2 point
            each.
        [8] [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost.
            There are 2 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each.
        [2] [SA] More than 20% of the loads are accessing the stack - Perform loop splitting to decrease pressure on
            registers. This issue costs 2 points.
     Vectorization Roadblocks: 14
        [2] [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked
            instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each.
        [4] [SA] Presence of constant non unit stride data access - Use array restructuring, perform loop interchange
            or use gather instructions to lower a bit the cost. There are 2 issues ( = data accesses) costing 2 point
            each.
        [8] [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost.
            There are 2 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each.

   + exec - 332 :
     analysis: Execution Time: 5 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 25.00 %
     Loop Computation Issues: 20
        [16] [SA] Presence of expensive FP instructions - Perform hoisting, change algorithm, use SVML or proper
            numerical library or perform value profiling (count the number of distinct input values). There are 4
            issues (= instructions) costing 4 points each.
        [4] [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize
            arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points.
     Data Access Issues: 2
        [0] [SA] Inefficient vectorization: more than 10% of the vector loads instructions are unaligned - When
            allocating arrays, don’t forget to align them. There are 0 issues ( = arrays) costing 2 points each
        [2] [SA] More than 20% of the loads are accessing the stack - Perform loop splitting to decrease pressure on
            registers. This issue costs 2 points.

   + exec - 253 :
     analysis: Execution Time: 5 % - Vectorization Ratio: 19.77 % - Vector Length Use: 14.97 %
     Loop Computation Issues: 30
        [24] [SA] Presence of expensive FP instructions - Perform hoisting, change algorithm, use SVML or proper
            numerical library or perform value profiling (count the number of distinct input values). There are 6
            issues (= instructions) costing 4 points each.
        [4] [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize
            arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points.
        [2] [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop
            splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points.
     Control Flow Issues: 6
        [2] [SA] Presence of calls - Inline either by compiler or by hand and use SVML for libm calls. There are 2
            issues (= calls) costing 1 point each.
        [4] [SA] Several paths (4 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked
            instructions. There are 4 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each.
     Data Access Issues: 40
        [30] [SA] Presence of constant non unit stride data access - Use array restructuring, perform loop interchange
            or use gather instructions to lower a bit the cost. There are 15 issues ( = data accesses) costing 2
            point each.
        [8] [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost.
            There are 2 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each.
        [2] [SA] More than 20% of the loads are accessing the stack - Perform loop splitting to decrease pressure on
            registers. This issue costs 2 points.
     Vectorization Roadblocks: 44
        [2] [SA] Presence of calls - Inline either by compiler or by hand and use SVML for libm calls. There are 2
            issues (= calls) costing 1 point each.
        [4] [SA] Several paths (4 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked
            instructions. There are 4 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each.
        [30] [SA] Presence of constant non unit stride data access - Use array restructuring, perform loop interchange
            or use gather instructions to lower a bit the cost. There are 15 issues ( = data accesses) costing 2
            point each.
        [8] [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost.
            There are 2 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each.

   + exec - 189 :
     analysis: Execution Time: 5 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 25.00 %
     Loop Computation Issues: 8
        [4] [SA] Presence of expensive FP instructions - Perform hoisting, change algorithm, use SVML or proper
            numerical library or perform value profiling (count the number of distinct input values). There are 1
            issues (= instructions) costing 4 points each.
        [4] [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize
            arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points.
     Data Access Issues: 2
        [0] [SA] Inefficient vectorization: more than 10% of the vector loads instructions are unaligned - When
            allocating arrays, don’t forget to align them. There are 0 issues ( = arrays) costing 2 points each
        [2] [SA] More than 20% of the loads are accessing the stack - Perform loop splitting to decrease pressure on
            registers. This issue costs 2 points.



+====================================================================================================================+
+                                                 3  -  APPLICATION                                                  +
+====================================================================================================================+


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+                                               3.1  -  Categorization                                               +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Category | IO     | Exe    | System  | Others  | Memory | String | MPI   | TBB   | OMP   | Pthread | Math  |
  ----------+--------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+---------+-------+
   Time (%) | 0.00   | 95.64  | 0.17    | 0.00    | 0.00   | 0.12   | 0.03  | 0.00  | 3.73  | 0.00    | 0.31  |




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+                                          3.2  -  Function Based Profiling                                          +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Buckets                    | Nb Functions              | Coverage                  | Cumulated Coverage        |
  ----------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
   > 8%                       | 0                         | 0.00                      | 0.00                      |
   4% to 8%                   | 8                         | 39.62                     | 39.62                     |
   2% to 4%                   | 17                        | 49.65                     | 89.27                     |
   1% to 2%                   | 6                         | 7.60                      | 96.87                     |
   0.5% to 1%                 | 2                         | 1.95                      | 98.82                     |
   0.25% to 0.5%              | 1                         | 0.27                      | 99.09                     |
   0.125% to 0.25%            | 2                         | 0.41                      | 99.50                     |
   < 0.125%                   | 106                       | 0.50                      | 100.00                    |




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+                                            3.3  -  Loop Based Profiling                                            +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Buckets                    | Nb Loops                  | Coverage                  | Cumulated Coverage        |
  ----------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
   > 8%                       | 0                         | 0.00                      | 0.00                      |
   4% to 8%                   | 8                         | 39.60                     | 39.60                     |
   2% to 4%                   | 16                        | 47.16                     | 86.76                     |
   1% to 2%                   | 4                         | 5.43                      | 92.19                     |
   0.5% to 1%                 | 2                         | 1.95                      | 94.14                     |
   0.25% to 0.5%              | 1                         | 0.27                      | 94.41                     |
   0.125% to 0.25%            | 0                         | 0.00                      | 94.41                     |
   < 0.125%                   | 65                        | 0.16                      | 94.57                     |


+====================================================================================================================+
+                                                  4  -  FUNCTIONS                                                   +
+====================================================================================================================+


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+                                              4.1  -  Top 10 Functions                                              +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Function                                               | Module              | Coverage (%)   | Time (s)       |
  --------------------------------------------------------+---------------------+----------------+----------------+
   PdV_kernel(bool, int, int, int, int, double, clover... | exec                | 6.21           | 2.44           |
   ideal_gas_kernel(int, int, int, int, clover::Buffer... | exec                | 5.57           | 2.19           |
   PdV_kernel(bool, int, int, int, int, double, clover... | exec                | 5.25           | 2.06           |
   calc_dt_kernel(int, int, int, int, double, double, ... | exec                | 5.14           | 2.02           |
   accelerate_kernel(int, int, int, int, double, clove... | exec                | 5.14           | 2.02           |
   advec_mom_kernel(int, int, int, int, clover::Buffer... | exec                | 4.16           | 1.64           |
   advec_mom_kernel(int, int, int, int, clover::Buffer... | exec                | 4.13           | 1.62           |
   flux_calc_kernel(int, int, int, int, double, clover... | exec                | 4.03           | 1.58           |
   advec_cell_kernel(int, int, int, int, int, int, clo... | exec                | 3.48           | 1.37           |
   advec_mom_kernel(int, int, int, int, clover::Buffer... | exec                | 3.47           | 1.36           |


+====================================================================================================================+
+                                                    5  -  LOOPS                                                     +
+====================================================================================================================+


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+                                                5.1  -  Top 10 Loops                                                +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Loop Id        | Module              | Source Location                                        | Coverage (%)   |
  ----------------+---------------------+--------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
   334            | exec                | PdV.cpp:72-83                                          | 6.20           |
   285            | exec                | ideal_gas.cpp:37-45,context.h:69-69                    | 5.57           |
   332            | exec                | PdV.cpp:51-63                                          | 5.24           |
   253            | exec                | context.h:46-46,context.h:69-69,calc_dt.cpp:51-75      | 5.14           |
   189            | exec                | accelerate.cpp:43-53                                   | 5.14           |
   232            | exec                | advec_mom.cpp:221-221                                  | 4.16           |
   226            | exec                | advec_mom.cpp:149-149                                  | 4.13           |
   274            | exec                | flux_calc.cpp:39-40                                    | 4.03           |
   197            | exec                | advec_cell.cpp:120-125                                 | 3.47           |
   237            | exec                | context.h:69-69,advec_mom.cpp:186-211                  | 3.46           |





+====================================================================================================================+
+                                                     6  -  CQA                                                      +
+====================================================================================================================+


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+                                                   6.1  -  Loops                                                    +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+





      6.1.1  -  Loop 334 from exec
  ==========================================================================================================

The loop is defined in /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/build/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/src/omp/PdV.cpp:72-83.

The related source loop is not unrolled or unrolled with no peel/tail loop.

      6.1.1.1  -  Path 1
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14% of peak computational performance is used (4.48 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.1.1.1  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is vectorized, but using only 128 out of 512 bits (SSE/AVX-128 instructions on AVX-512 processors).
<<image_2x64_512>>By fully vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 16.50 to 16.00 cycles (1.03x speedup).

Details
All SSE/AVX instructions are used in vector version (process two or more data elements in vector registers).
Since your execution units are vector units, only a fully vectorized loop can use their full power.


Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Use vector aligned instructions:
  1) align your arrays on 64 bytes boundaries: replace { void *p = malloc (size); } with { void *p; posix_memalign (&p, 64, size); }.
  2) inform your compiler that your arrays are vector aligned: if array 'foo' is 64 bytes-aligned, define a pointer 'p_foo' as __builtin_assume_aligned (foo, 64) and use it instead of 'foo' in the loop.



      6.1.1.1.2  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance is limited by execution of FP multiply or FMA (fused multiply-add) operations (the FP multiply/FMA unit is a bottleneck).


Workaround
Reduce the number of FP multiply/FMA instructions




      6.1.1.1.3  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.1.1.4  -  Vector unaligned load/store instructions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected 28 suboptimal vector unaligned load/store instructions.


Details
 - MOVUPD: 26 occurrences<<list_path_1_vec_align_1>>
 - MOVUPS: 2 occurrences<<list_path_1_vec_align_2>>


Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Use vector aligned instructions:
  1) align your arrays on 64 bytes boundaries: replace { void *p = malloc (size); } with { void *p; posix_memalign (&p, 64, size); }.
  2) inform your compiler that your arrays are vector aligned: if array 'foo' is 64 bytes-aligned, define a pointer 'p_foo' as __builtin_assume_aligned (foo, 64) and use it instead of 'foo' in the loop.
<<image_vec_align>>


      6.1.1.1.5  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in vector mode (two at a time).



      6.1.1.1.6  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 74 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 36: addition or subtraction
 - 30: multiply
 - 8: divide
The binary loop is loading 624 bytes (78 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 128 bytes (16 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.1.1.7  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.10 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.


      6.1.1.1.8  -  Unroll opportunity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loop is potentially data access bound.

Workaround
Unroll your loop if trip count is significantly higher than target unroll factor and if some data references are common to consecutive iterations. This can be done manually. Or by recompiling with -funroll-loops and/or -floop-unroll-and-jam. Or with the unroll (resp. unroll_and_jam) directive on top of the inner (resp. surrounding) loop. You can enforce an unroll factor: #pragma GCC unroll N







      6.1.2  -  Loop 285 from exec
  ==========================================================================================================

The loop is defined in:
 - /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/build/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/src/omp/ideal_gas.cpp:37-45
 - /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/build/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/src/omp/context.h:69


The related source loop is not unrolled or unrolled with no peel/tail loop.
The structure of this loop is probably <if then [else] end>.

The presence of multiple execution paths is typically the main/first bottleneck.
Try to simplify control inside loop: ideally, try to remove all conditional expressions, for example by (if applicable):
 - hoisting them (moving them outside the loop)
 - turning them into conditional moves, MIN or MAX


Ex: if (x<0) x=0 => x = (x<0 ? 0 : x) (or MAX(0,x) after defining the corresponding macro)


      6.1.2.1  -  Path 1
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3% of peak computational performance is used (1.18 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.2.1.1  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is probably not vectorized.
Only 13% of vector register length is used (average across all SSE/AVX instructions).
By vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 8.50 to 4.25 cycles (2.00x speedup).

Details
Store and arithmetical SSE/AVX instructions are used in scalar version (process only one data element in vector registers).
Since your execution units are vector units, only a vectorized loop can use their full power.


Workaround
 - Try another compiler or update/tune your current one:
  * recompile with fassociative-math (included in Ofast or ffast-math) to extend loop vectorization to FP reductions.
 - Remove inter-iterations dependences from your loop and make it unit-stride:
  * If your arrays have 2 or more dimensions, check whether elements are accessed contiguously and, otherwise, try to permute loops accordingly:
C storage order is row-major: for(i) for(j) a[j][i] = b[j][i]; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) for(j) a[i][j] = b[i][j]; (fast, stride 1)<<image_row_maj>>
  * If your loop streams arrays of structures (AoS), try to use structures of arrays instead (SoA):
for(i) a[i].x = b[i].x; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) a.x[i] = b.x[i]; (fast, stride 1)



      6.1.2.1.2  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance is limited by execution of divide and square root operations (the divide/square root unit is a bottleneck).

By removing all these bottlenecks, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 8.50 to 5.50 cycles (1.55x speedup).


Workaround
 - Reduce the number of division or square root instructions:
  * If denominator is constant over iterations, use reciprocal (replace x/y with x*(1/y)). Check precision impact. This will be done by your compiler with ffast-math or Ofast
 - Check whether you really need double precision. If not, switch to single precision to speedup execution





      6.1.2.1.3  -  Expensive FP math instructions/calls
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected performance impact from expensive FP math instructions/calls.
By removing/reexpressing them, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 8.50 to 5.00 cycles (1.70x speedup).


      6.1.2.1.4  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.2.1.5  -  Slow data structures access
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected data structures (typically arrays) that cannot be efficiently read/written

Details
 - Constant unknown stride: 2 occurrence(s)
Non-unit stride (uncontiguous) accesses are not efficiently using data caches


Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)



      6.1.2.1.6  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in scalar mode (one at a time).



      6.1.2.1.7  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 10 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 1: addition or subtraction
 - 7: multiply
 - 1: divide
 - 1: square root
The binary loop is loading 48 bytes (6 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 16 bytes (2 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.2.1.8  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.16 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.




      6.1.2.2  -  Path 2
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warnings:
Detected a function call instruction: ignoring called function instructions.
Rerun with --follow-calls=append to include them to analysis  or with --follow-calls=inline to simulate inlining.
3% of peak computational performance is used (1.20 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.2.2.1  -  Code clean check
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected a slowdown caused by scalar integer instructions (typically used for address computation).
By removing them, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 7.50 to 4.50 cycles (1.67x speedup).

Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)



      6.1.2.2.2  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is probably not vectorized.
Only 13% of vector register length is used (average across all SSE/AVX instructions).
By vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 7.50 to 2.00 cycles (3.75x speedup).

Details
Store and arithmetical SSE/AVX instructions are used in scalar version (process only one data element in vector registers).
Since your execution units are vector units, only a vectorized loop can use their full power.


Workaround
 - Try another compiler or update/tune your current one:
  * recompile with fassociative-math (included in Ofast or ffast-math) to extend loop vectorization to FP reductions.
 - Remove inter-iterations dependences from your loop and make it unit-stride:
  * If your arrays have 2 or more dimensions, check whether elements are accessed contiguously and, otherwise, try to permute loops accordingly:
C storage order is row-major: for(i) for(j) a[j][i] = b[j][i]; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) for(j) a[i][j] = b[i][j]; (fast, stride 1)<<image_row_maj>>
  * If your loop streams arrays of structures (AoS), try to use structures of arrays instead (SoA):
for(i) a[i].x = b[i].x; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) a.x[i] = b.x[i]; (fast, stride 1)



      6.1.2.2.3  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found no such bottlenecks but see expert reports for more complex bottlenecks.




      6.1.2.2.4  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.2.2.5  -  CALL instructions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected function call instructions.


Details
Calling (and then returning from) a function prevents many compiler optimizations (like vectorization), breaks control flow (which reduces pipeline performance) and executes extra instructions to save/restore the registers used inside it, which is very expensive (dozens of cycles). Consider to inline small functions.
 - sqrt@plt: 1 occurrences<<list_path_2_call_1>>



      6.1.2.2.6  -  Slow data structures access
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected data structures (typically arrays) that cannot be efficiently read/written

Details
 - Constant unknown stride: 1 occurrence(s)
 - Irregular (variable stride) or indirect: 4 occurrence(s)
Non-unit stride (uncontiguous) accesses are not efficiently using data caches


Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)
 - Try to remove indirect accesses. If applicable, precompute elements out of the innermost loop.



      6.1.2.2.7  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in scalar mode (one at a time).



      6.1.2.2.8  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 9 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 1: addition or subtraction
 - 7: multiply
 - 1: divide
The binary loop is loading 116 bytes (14 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 68 bytes (8 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.2.2.9  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.05 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.


      6.1.2.2.10  -  Unroll opportunity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loop is data access bound.

Workaround
Unroll your loop if trip count is significantly higher than target unroll factor and if some data references are common to consecutive iterations. This can be done manually. Or by recompiling with -funroll-loops and/or -floop-unroll-and-jam. Or with the unroll (resp. unroll_and_jam) directive on top of the inner (resp. surrounding) loop. You can enforce an unroll factor: #pragma GCC unroll N







      6.1.3  -  Loop 332 from exec
  ==========================================================================================================

The loop is defined in /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/build/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/src/omp/PdV.cpp:51-63.

The related source loop is not unrolled or unrolled with no peel/tail loop.

      6.1.3.1  -  Path 1
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13% of peak computational performance is used (4.43 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.3.1.1  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is vectorized, but using only 128 out of 512 bits (SSE/AVX-128 instructions on AVX-512 processors).
<<image_2x64_512>>By fully vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 18.50 to 16.00 cycles (1.16x speedup).

Details
All SSE/AVX instructions are used in vector version (process two or more data elements in vector registers).
Since your execution units are vector units, only a fully vectorized loop can use their full power.


Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Use vector aligned instructions:
  1) align your arrays on 64 bytes boundaries: replace { void *p = malloc (size); } with { void *p; posix_memalign (&p, 64, size); }.
  2) inform your compiler that your arrays are vector aligned: if array 'foo' is 64 bytes-aligned, define a pointer 'p_foo' as __builtin_assume_aligned (foo, 64) and use it instead of 'foo' in the loop.



      6.1.3.1.2  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance is limited by execution of FP multiply or FMA (fused multiply-add) operations (the FP multiply/FMA unit is a bottleneck).


Workaround
Reduce the number of FP multiply/FMA instructions




      6.1.3.1.3  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.3.1.4  -  Vector unaligned load/store instructions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected 20 suboptimal vector unaligned load/store instructions.


Details
 - MOVUPD: 18 occurrences<<list_path_1_vec_align_1>>
 - MOVUPS: 2 occurrences<<list_path_1_vec_align_2>>


Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Use vector aligned instructions:
  1) align your arrays on 64 bytes boundaries: replace { void *p = malloc (size); } with { void *p; posix_memalign (&p, 64, size); }.
  2) inform your compiler that your arrays are vector aligned: if array 'foo' is 64 bytes-aligned, define a pointer 'p_foo' as __builtin_assume_aligned (foo, 64) and use it instead of 'foo' in the loop.
<<image_vec_align>>


      6.1.3.1.5  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in vector mode (two at a time).



      6.1.3.1.6  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 82 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 36: addition or subtraction
 - 38: multiply
 - 8: divide
The binary loop is loading 352 bytes (44 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 48 bytes (6 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.3.1.7  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.20 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.







      6.1.4  -  Loop 253 from exec
  ==========================================================================================================

The loop is defined in:
 - /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/build/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/src/omp/context.h:46,69
 - /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/build/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/src/omp/calc_dt.cpp:51-75


The related source loop is not unrolled or unrolled with no peel/tail loop.
This loop has 4 execution paths.

The presence of multiple execution paths is typically the main/first bottleneck.
Try to simplify control inside loop: ideally, try to remove all conditional expressions, for example by (if applicable):
 - hoisting them (moving them outside the loop)
 - turning them into conditional moves, MIN or MAX


Ex: if (x<0) x=0 => x = (x<0 ? 0 : x) (or MAX(0,x) after defining the corresponding macro)


      6.1.4.1  -  Path 1
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warnings:
Detected a function call instruction: ignoring called function instructions.
Rerun with --follow-calls=append to include them to analysis  or with --follow-calls=inline to simulate inlining.
3% of peak computational performance is used (0.98 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.4.1.1  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is probably not vectorized.
Only 14% of vector register length is used (average across all SSE/AVX instructions).
By vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 28.67 to 14.25 cycles (2.01x speedup).

Details
Store and arithmetical SSE/AVX instructions are used in scalar version (process only one data element in vector registers).
Since your execution units are vector units, only a vectorized loop can use their full power.


Workaround
 - Try another compiler or update/tune your current one:
  * recompile with fassociative-math (included in Ofast or ffast-math) to extend loop vectorization to FP reductions.
 - Remove inter-iterations dependences from your loop and make it unit-stride:
  * If your arrays have 2 or more dimensions, check whether elements are accessed contiguously and, otherwise, try to permute loops accordingly:
C storage order is row-major: for(i) for(j) a[j][i] = b[j][i]; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) for(j) a[i][j] = b[i][j]; (fast, stride 1)<<image_row_maj>>
  * If your loop streams arrays of structures (AoS), try to use structures of arrays instead (SoA):
for(i) a[i].x = b[i].x; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) a.x[i] = b.x[i]; (fast, stride 1)



      6.1.4.1.2  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found no such bottlenecks but see expert reports for more complex bottlenecks.




      6.1.4.1.3  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.4.1.4  -  CALL instructions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected function call instructions.


Details
Calling (and then returning from) a function prevents many compiler optimizations (like vectorization), breaks control flow (which reduces pipeline performance) and executes extra instructions to save/restore the registers used inside it, which is very expensive (dozens of cycles). Consider to inline small functions.
 - fmax@plt: 5 occurrences<<list_path_1_call_1>>
 - fmin@plt: 6 occurrences<<list_path_1_call_2>>



      6.1.4.1.5  -  Slow data structures access
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected data structures (typically arrays) that cannot be efficiently read/written

Details
 - Constant unknown stride: 15 occurrence(s)
 - Irregular (variable stride) or indirect: 2 occurrence(s)
Non-unit stride (uncontiguous) accesses are not efficiently using data caches


Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)
 - Try to remove indirect accesses. If applicable, precompute elements out of the innermost loop.



      6.1.4.1.6  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in scalar mode (one at a time).



      6.1.4.1.7  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 28 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 11: addition or subtraction
 - 10: multiply
 - 6: divide
 - 1: square root
The binary loop is loading 624 bytes (78 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 88 bytes (11 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.4.1.8  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.04 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.


      6.1.4.1.9  -  Unroll opportunity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loop is potentially data access bound.

Workaround
Unroll your loop if trip count is significantly higher than target unroll factor and if some data references are common to consecutive iterations. This can be done manually. Or by recompiling with -funroll-loops and/or -floop-unroll-and-jam. Or with the unroll (resp. unroll_and_jam) directive on top of the inner (resp. surrounding) loop. You can enforce an unroll factor: #pragma GCC unroll N




      6.1.4.2  -  Path 2
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warnings:
Detected a function call instruction: ignoring called function instructions.
Rerun with --follow-calls=append to include them to analysis  or with --follow-calls=inline to simulate inlining.
2% of peak computational performance is used (0.95 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.4.2.1  -  Code clean check
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected a slowdown caused by scalar integer instructions (typically used for address computation).
By removing them, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 27.33 to 24.50 cycles (1.12x speedup).

Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)



      6.1.4.2.2  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is probably not vectorized.
Only 15% of vector register length is used (average across all SSE/AVX instructions).
By vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 27.33 to 12.25 cycles (2.23x speedup).

Details
Store and arithmetical SSE/AVX instructions are used in scalar version (process only one data element in vector registers).
Since your execution units are vector units, only a vectorized loop can use their full power.


Workaround
 - Try another compiler or update/tune your current one:
  * recompile with fassociative-math (included in Ofast or ffast-math) to extend loop vectorization to FP reductions.
 - Remove inter-iterations dependences from your loop and make it unit-stride:
  * If your arrays have 2 or more dimensions, check whether elements are accessed contiguously and, otherwise, try to permute loops accordingly:
C storage order is row-major: for(i) for(j) a[j][i] = b[j][i]; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) for(j) a[i][j] = b[i][j]; (fast, stride 1)<<image_row_maj>>
  * If your loop streams arrays of structures (AoS), try to use structures of arrays instead (SoA):
for(i) a[i].x = b[i].x; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) a.x[i] = b.x[i]; (fast, stride 1)



      6.1.4.2.3  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found no such bottlenecks but see expert reports for more complex bottlenecks.




      6.1.4.2.4  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.4.2.5  -  CALL instructions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected function call instructions.


Details
Calling (and then returning from) a function prevents many compiler optimizations (like vectorization), breaks control flow (which reduces pipeline performance) and executes extra instructions to save/restore the registers used inside it, which is very expensive (dozens of cycles). Consider to inline small functions.
 - fmax@plt: 5 occurrences<<list_path_2_call_1>>
 - fmin@plt: 5 occurrences<<list_path_2_call_2>>



      6.1.4.2.6  -  Slow data structures access
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected data structures (typically arrays) that cannot be efficiently read/written

Details
 - Constant unknown stride: 15 occurrence(s)
 - Irregular (variable stride) or indirect: 2 occurrence(s)
Non-unit stride (uncontiguous) accesses are not efficiently using data caches


Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)
 - Try to remove indirect accesses. If applicable, precompute elements out of the innermost loop.



      6.1.4.2.7  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in scalar mode (one at a time).



      6.1.4.2.8  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 26 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 11: addition or subtraction
 - 9: multiply
 - 5: divide
 - 1: square root
The binary loop is loading 600 bytes (75 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 80 bytes (10 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.4.2.9  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.04 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.


      6.1.4.2.10  -  Unroll opportunity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loop is potentially data access bound.

Workaround
Unroll your loop if trip count is significantly higher than target unroll factor and if some data references are common to consecutive iterations. This can be done manually. Or by recompiling with -funroll-loops and/or -floop-unroll-and-jam. Or with the unroll (resp. unroll_and_jam) directive on top of the inner (resp. surrounding) loop. You can enforce an unroll factor: #pragma GCC unroll N




      6.1.4.3  -  Path 3
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warnings:
Detected a function call instruction: ignoring called function instructions.
Rerun with --follow-calls=append to include them to analysis  or with --follow-calls=inline to simulate inlining.
2% of peak computational performance is used (0.93 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.4.3.1  -  Code clean check
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected a slowdown caused by scalar integer instructions (typically used for address computation).
By removing them, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 29.00 to 24.00 cycles (1.21x speedup).

Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)



      6.1.4.3.2  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is probably not vectorized.
Only 14% of vector register length is used (average across all SSE/AVX instructions).
By vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 29.00 to 12.00 cycles (2.42x speedup).

Details
Store and arithmetical SSE/AVX instructions are used in scalar version (process only one data element in vector registers).
Since your execution units are vector units, only a vectorized loop can use their full power.


Workaround
 - Try another compiler or update/tune your current one:
  * recompile with fassociative-math (included in Ofast or ffast-math) to extend loop vectorization to FP reductions.
 - Remove inter-iterations dependences from your loop and make it unit-stride:
  * If your arrays have 2 or more dimensions, check whether elements are accessed contiguously and, otherwise, try to permute loops accordingly:
C storage order is row-major: for(i) for(j) a[j][i] = b[j][i]; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) for(j) a[i][j] = b[i][j]; (fast, stride 1)<<image_row_maj>>
  * If your loop streams arrays of structures (AoS), try to use structures of arrays instead (SoA):
for(i) a[i].x = b[i].x; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) a.x[i] = b.x[i]; (fast, stride 1)



      6.1.4.3.3  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found no such bottlenecks but see expert reports for more complex bottlenecks.




      6.1.4.3.4  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.4.3.5  -  CALL instructions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected function call instructions.


Details
Calling (and then returning from) a function prevents many compiler optimizations (like vectorization), breaks control flow (which reduces pipeline performance) and executes extra instructions to save/restore the registers used inside it, which is very expensive (dozens of cycles). Consider to inline small functions.
 - fmax@plt: 5 occurrences<<list_path_3_call_1>>
 - fmin@plt: 6 occurrences<<list_path_3_call_2>>
 - sqrt@plt: 1 occurrences<<list_path_3_call_3>>



      6.1.4.3.6  -  Slow data structures access
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected data structures (typically arrays) that cannot be efficiently read/written

Details
 - Constant unknown stride: 15 occurrence(s)
 - Irregular (variable stride) or indirect: 2 occurrence(s)
Non-unit stride (uncontiguous) accesses are not efficiently using data caches


Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)
 - Try to remove indirect accesses. If applicable, precompute elements out of the innermost loop.



      6.1.4.3.7  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in scalar mode (one at a time).



      6.1.4.3.8  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 27 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 11: addition or subtraction
 - 10: multiply
 - 6: divide
The binary loop is loading 624 bytes (78 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 88 bytes (11 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.4.3.9  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.04 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.


      6.1.4.3.10  -  Unroll opportunity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loop is data access bound.

Workaround
Unroll your loop if trip count is significantly higher than target unroll factor and if some data references are common to consecutive iterations. This can be done manually. Or by recompiling with -funroll-loops and/or -floop-unroll-and-jam. Or with the unroll (resp. unroll_and_jam) directive on top of the inner (resp. surrounding) loop. You can enforce an unroll factor: #pragma GCC unroll N




      6.1.4.4  -  Path 4
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warnings:
Detected a function call instruction: ignoring called function instructions.
Rerun with --follow-calls=append to include them to analysis  or with --follow-calls=inline to simulate inlining.
2% of peak computational performance is used (0.90 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.4.4.1  -  Code clean check
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected a slowdown caused by scalar integer instructions (typically used for address computation).
By removing them, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 27.67 to 20.00 cycles (1.38x speedup).

Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)



      6.1.4.4.2  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is probably not vectorized.
Only 15% of vector register length is used (average across all SSE/AVX instructions).
By vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 27.67 to 10.00 cycles (2.77x speedup).

Details
Store and arithmetical SSE/AVX instructions are used in scalar version (process only one data element in vector registers).
Since your execution units are vector units, only a vectorized loop can use their full power.


Workaround
 - Try another compiler or update/tune your current one:
  * recompile with fassociative-math (included in Ofast or ffast-math) to extend loop vectorization to FP reductions.
 - Remove inter-iterations dependences from your loop and make it unit-stride:
  * If your arrays have 2 or more dimensions, check whether elements are accessed contiguously and, otherwise, try to permute loops accordingly:
C storage order is row-major: for(i) for(j) a[j][i] = b[j][i]; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) for(j) a[i][j] = b[i][j]; (fast, stride 1)<<image_row_maj>>
  * If your loop streams arrays of structures (AoS), try to use structures of arrays instead (SoA):
for(i) a[i].x = b[i].x; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) a.x[i] = b.x[i]; (fast, stride 1)



      6.1.4.4.3  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found no such bottlenecks but see expert reports for more complex bottlenecks.




      6.1.4.4.4  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.4.4.5  -  CALL instructions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected function call instructions.


Details
Calling (and then returning from) a function prevents many compiler optimizations (like vectorization), breaks control flow (which reduces pipeline performance) and executes extra instructions to save/restore the registers used inside it, which is very expensive (dozens of cycles). Consider to inline small functions.
 - fmax@plt: 5 occurrences<<list_path_4_call_1>>
 - fmin@plt: 5 occurrences<<list_path_4_call_2>>
 - sqrt@plt: 1 occurrences<<list_path_4_call_3>>



      6.1.4.4.6  -  Slow data structures access
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected data structures (typically arrays) that cannot be efficiently read/written

Details
 - Constant unknown stride: 15 occurrence(s)
 - Irregular (variable stride) or indirect: 2 occurrence(s)
Non-unit stride (uncontiguous) accesses are not efficiently using data caches


Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)
 - Try to remove indirect accesses. If applicable, precompute elements out of the innermost loop.



      6.1.4.4.7  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in scalar mode (one at a time).



      6.1.4.4.8  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 25 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 11: addition or subtraction
 - 9: multiply
 - 5: divide
The binary loop is loading 600 bytes (75 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 80 bytes (10 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.4.4.9  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.04 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.


      6.1.4.4.10  -  Unroll opportunity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loop is data access bound.

Workaround
Unroll your loop if trip count is significantly higher than target unroll factor and if some data references are common to consecutive iterations. This can be done manually. Or by recompiling with -funroll-loops and/or -floop-unroll-and-jam. Or with the unroll (resp. unroll_and_jam) directive on top of the inner (resp. surrounding) loop. You can enforce an unroll factor: #pragma GCC unroll N







      6.1.5  -  Loop 189 from exec
  ==========================================================================================================

The loop is defined in /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/build/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/src/omp/accelerate.cpp:43-53.

The related source loop is not unrolled or unrolled with no peel/tail loop.

      6.1.5.1  -  Path 1
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12% of peak computational performance is used (4.11 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.5.1.1  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is vectorized, but using only 128 out of 512 bits (SSE/AVX-128 instructions on AVX-512 processors).
<<image_2x64_512>>By fully vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 18.00 to 4.50 cycles (4.00x speedup).

Details
All SSE/AVX instructions are used in vector version (process two or more data elements in vector registers).
Since your execution units are vector units, only a fully vectorized loop can use their full power.


Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Use vector aligned instructions:
  1) align your arrays on 64 bytes boundaries: replace { void *p = malloc (size); } with { void *p; posix_memalign (&p, 64, size); }.
  2) inform your compiler that your arrays are vector aligned: if array 'foo' is 64 bytes-aligned, define a pointer 'p_foo' as __builtin_assume_aligned (foo, 64) and use it instead of 'foo' in the loop.



      6.1.5.1.2  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance is limited by:
 - execution of FP multiply or FMA (fused multiply-add) operations (the FP multiply/FMA unit is a bottleneck)
 - reading data from caches/RAM (load units are a bottleneck)

By removing all these bottlenecks, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 18.00 to 16.83 cycles (1.07x speedup).


Workaround
 - Reduce the number of FP multiply/FMA instructions
 - Read less array elements
 - Provide more information to your compiler:
  * hardcode the bounds of the corresponding 'for' loop





      6.1.5.1.3  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.5.1.4  -  Vector unaligned load/store instructions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected 40 suboptimal vector unaligned load/store instructions.


Details
 - MOVUPD: 36 occurrences<<list_path_1_vec_align_1>>
 - MOVUPS: 4 occurrences<<list_path_1_vec_align_2>>


Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Use vector aligned instructions:
  1) align your arrays on 64 bytes boundaries: replace { void *p = malloc (size); } with { void *p; posix_memalign (&p, 64, size); }.
  2) inform your compiler that your arrays are vector aligned: if array 'foo' is 64 bytes-aligned, define a pointer 'p_foo' as __builtin_assume_aligned (foo, 64) and use it instead of 'foo' in the loop.
<<image_vec_align>>


      6.1.5.1.5  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in vector mode (two at a time).



      6.1.5.1.6  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 74 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 38: addition or subtraction
 - 34: multiply
 - 2: divide
The binary loop is loading 752 bytes (94 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 144 bytes (18 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.5.1.7  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.08 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.


      6.1.5.1.8  -  Unroll opportunity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loop is data access bound.

Workaround
Unroll your loop if trip count is significantly higher than target unroll factor and if some data references are common to consecutive iterations. This can be done manually. Or by recompiling with -funroll-loops and/or -floop-unroll-and-jam. Or with the unroll (resp. unroll_and_jam) directive on top of the inner (resp. surrounding) loop. You can enforce an unroll factor: #pragma GCC unroll N







      6.1.6  -  Loop 232 from exec
  ==========================================================================================================

The loop is defined in /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/build/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/src/omp/advec_mom.cpp:221.

The related source loop is not unrolled or unrolled with no peel/tail loop.

      6.1.6.1  -  Path 1
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6% of peak computational performance is used (2.00 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.6.1.1  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is vectorized, but using only 128 out of 512 bits (SSE/AVX-128 instructions on AVX-512 processors).
<<image_2x64_512>>

Details
All SSE/AVX instructions are used in vector version (process two or more data elements in vector registers).



      6.1.6.1.2  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance is limited by execution of divide and square root operations (the divide/square root unit is a bottleneck).

By removing all these bottlenecks, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 4.00 to 2.00 cycles (2.00x speedup).


Workaround
 - Reduce the number of division or square root instructions:
  * If denominator is constant over iterations, use reciprocal (replace x/y with x*(1/y)). Check precision impact. This will be done by your compiler with ffast-math or Ofast
 - Check whether you really need double precision. If not, switch to single precision to speedup execution





      6.1.6.1.3  -  Expensive FP math instructions/calls
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected performance impact from expensive FP math instructions/calls.
By removing/reexpressing them, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 4.00 to 2.00 cycles (2.00x speedup).


      6.1.6.1.4  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.6.1.5  -  Vector unaligned load/store instructions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected 6 suboptimal vector unaligned load/store instructions.


Details
 - MOVUPD: 5 occurrences<<list_path_1_vec_align_1>>
 - MOVUPS: 1 occurrences<<list_path_1_vec_align_2>>


Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Use vector aligned instructions:
  1) align your arrays on 64 bytes boundaries: replace { void *p = malloc (size); } with { void *p; posix_memalign (&p, 64, size); }.
  2) inform your compiler that your arrays are vector aligned: if array 'foo' is 64 bytes-aligned, define a pointer 'p_foo' as __builtin_assume_aligned (foo, 64) and use it instead of 'foo' in the loop.
<<image_vec_align>>


      6.1.6.1.6  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in vector mode (two at a time).



      6.1.6.1.7  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 8 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 4: addition or subtraction
 - 2: multiply
 - 2: divide
The binary loop is loading 80 bytes (10 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 16 bytes (2 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.6.1.8  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.08 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.







      6.1.7  -  Loop 226 from exec
  ==========================================================================================================

The loop is defined in /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/build/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/src/omp/advec_mom.cpp:149.

The related source loop is not unrolled or unrolled with no peel/tail loop.

      6.1.7.1  -  Path 1
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6% of peak computational performance is used (2.00 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.7.1.1  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is vectorized, but using only 128 out of 512 bits (SSE/AVX-128 instructions on AVX-512 processors).
<<image_2x64_512>>

Details
All SSE/AVX instructions are used in vector version (process two or more data elements in vector registers).



      6.1.7.1.2  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance is limited by execution of divide and square root operations (the divide/square root unit is a bottleneck).

By removing all these bottlenecks, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 4.00 to 2.00 cycles (2.00x speedup).


Workaround
 - Reduce the number of division or square root instructions:
  * If denominator is constant over iterations, use reciprocal (replace x/y with x*(1/y)). Check precision impact. This will be done by your compiler with ffast-math or Ofast
 - Check whether you really need double precision. If not, switch to single precision to speedup execution





      6.1.7.1.3  -  Expensive FP math instructions/calls
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected performance impact from expensive FP math instructions/calls.
By removing/reexpressing them, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 4.00 to 2.00 cycles (2.00x speedup).


      6.1.7.1.4  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.7.1.5  -  Vector unaligned load/store instructions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected 6 suboptimal vector unaligned load/store instructions.


Details
 - MOVUPD: 5 occurrences<<list_path_1_vec_align_1>>
 - MOVUPS: 1 occurrences<<list_path_1_vec_align_2>>


Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Use vector aligned instructions:
  1) align your arrays on 64 bytes boundaries: replace { void *p = malloc (size); } with { void *p; posix_memalign (&p, 64, size); }.
  2) inform your compiler that your arrays are vector aligned: if array 'foo' is 64 bytes-aligned, define a pointer 'p_foo' as __builtin_assume_aligned (foo, 64) and use it instead of 'foo' in the loop.
<<image_vec_align>>


      6.1.7.1.6  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in vector mode (two at a time).



      6.1.7.1.7  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 8 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 4: addition or subtraction
 - 2: multiply
 - 2: divide
The binary loop is loading 80 bytes (10 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 16 bytes (2 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.7.1.8  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.08 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.







      6.1.8  -  Loop 274 from exec
  ==========================================================================================================

The loop is defined in /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/build/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/src/omp/flux_calc.cpp:39-40.

The related source loop is not unrolled or unrolled with no peel/tail loop.

      6.1.8.1  -  Path 1
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12% of peak computational performance is used (4.00 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.8.1.1  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is vectorized, but using only 128 out of 512 bits (SSE/AVX-128 instructions on AVX-512 processors).
<<image_2x64_512>>By fully vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 5.00 to 1.25 cycles (4.00x speedup).

Details
All SSE/AVX instructions are used in vector version (process two or more data elements in vector registers).
Since your execution units are vector units, only a fully vectorized loop can use their full power.


Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Use vector aligned instructions:
  1) align your arrays on 64 bytes boundaries: replace { void *p = malloc (size); } with { void *p; posix_memalign (&p, 64, size); }.
  2) inform your compiler that your arrays are vector aligned: if array 'foo' is 64 bytes-aligned, define a pointer 'p_foo' as __builtin_assume_aligned (foo, 64) and use it instead of 'foo' in the loop.



      6.1.8.1.2  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance is limited by execution of FP multiply or FMA (fused multiply-add) operations (the FP multiply/FMA unit is a bottleneck).

By removing all these bottlenecks, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 5.00 to 4.00 cycles (1.25x speedup).


Workaround
Reduce the number of FP multiply/FMA instructions




      6.1.8.1.3  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.8.1.4  -  Vector unaligned load/store instructions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected 12 suboptimal vector unaligned load/store instructions.


Details
 - MOVUPD: 10 occurrences<<list_path_1_vec_align_1>>
 - MOVUPS: 2 occurrences<<list_path_1_vec_align_2>>


Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Use vector aligned instructions:
  1) align your arrays on 64 bytes boundaries: replace { void *p = malloc (size); } with { void *p; posix_memalign (&p, 64, size); }.
  2) inform your compiler that your arrays are vector aligned: if array 'foo' is 64 bytes-aligned, define a pointer 'p_foo' as __builtin_assume_aligned (foo, 64) and use it instead of 'foo' in the loop.
<<image_vec_align>>


      6.1.8.1.5  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in vector mode (two at a time).



      6.1.8.1.6  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 20 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 12: addition or subtraction
 - 8: multiply
The binary loop is loading 160 bytes (20 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 32 bytes (4 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.8.1.7  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.10 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.


      6.1.8.1.8  -  Unroll opportunity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loop is potentially data access bound.

Workaround
Unroll your loop if trip count is significantly higher than target unroll factor and if some data references are common to consecutive iterations. This can be done manually. Or by recompiling with -funroll-loops and/or -floop-unroll-and-jam. Or with the unroll (resp. unroll_and_jam) directive on top of the inner (resp. surrounding) loop. You can enforce an unroll factor: #pragma GCC unroll N







      6.1.9  -  Loop 197 from exec
  ==========================================================================================================

The loop is defined in /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/build/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/src/omp/advec_cell.cpp:120-125.

The related source loop is not unrolled or unrolled with no peel/tail loop.

      6.1.9.1  -  Path 1
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7% of peak computational performance is used (2.50 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.9.1.1  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is vectorized, but using only 128 out of 512 bits (SSE/AVX-128 instructions on AVX-512 processors).
<<image_2x64_512>>

Details
All SSE/AVX instructions are used in vector version (process two or more data elements in vector registers).



      6.1.9.1.2  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance is limited by execution of divide and square root operations (the divide/square root unit is a bottleneck).

By removing all these bottlenecks, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 8.00 to 4.00 cycles (2.00x speedup).


Workaround
 - Reduce the number of division or square root instructions:
  * If denominator is constant over iterations, use reciprocal (replace x/y with x*(1/y)). Check precision impact. This will be done by your compiler with ffast-math or Ofast
 - Check whether you really need double precision. If not, switch to single precision to speedup execution





      6.1.9.1.3  -  Expensive FP math instructions/calls
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected performance impact from expensive FP math instructions/calls.
By removing/reexpressing them, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 8.00 to 5.00 cycles (1.60x speedup).


      6.1.9.1.4  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.9.1.5  -  Vector unaligned load/store instructions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected 11 suboptimal vector unaligned load/store instructions.


Details
 - MOVUPD: 9 occurrences<<list_path_1_vec_align_1>>
 - MOVUPS: 2 occurrences<<list_path_1_vec_align_2>>


Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Use vector aligned instructions:
  1) align your arrays on 64 bytes boundaries: replace { void *p = malloc (size); } with { void *p; posix_memalign (&p, 64, size); }.
  2) inform your compiler that your arrays are vector aligned: if array 'foo' is 64 bytes-aligned, define a pointer 'p_foo' as __builtin_assume_aligned (foo, 64) and use it instead of 'foo' in the loop.
<<image_vec_align>>


      6.1.9.1.6  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in vector mode (two at a time).



      6.1.9.1.7  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 20 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 12: addition or subtraction
 - 4: multiply
 - 4: divide
The binary loop is loading 144 bytes (18 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 32 bytes (4 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.9.1.8  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.11 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.







      6.1.10  -  Loop 237 from exec
  ==========================================================================================================

The loop is defined in:
 - /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/build/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/src/omp/context.h:69
 - /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/build/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/src/omp/advec_mom.cpp:186-211


The related source loop is not unrolled or unrolled with no peel/tail loop.
This loop has 4 execution paths.

The presence of multiple execution paths is typically the main/first bottleneck.
Try to simplify control inside loop: ideally, try to remove all conditional expressions, for example by (if applicable):
 - hoisting them (moving them outside the loop)
 - turning them into conditional moves, MIN or MAX


Ex: if (x<0) x=0 => x = (x<0 ? 0 : x) (or MAX(0,x) after defining the corresponding macro)


      6.1.10.1  -  Path 1
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3% of peak computational performance is used (1.12 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.10.1.1  -  Code clean check
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected a slowdown caused by scalar integer instructions (typically used for address computation).
By removing them, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 7.17 to 4.83 cycles (1.48x speedup).

Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)



      6.1.10.1.2  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is probably not vectorized.
Only 15% of vector register length is used (average across all SSE/AVX instructions).
By vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 7.17 to 2.00 cycles (3.58x speedup).

Details
Store and arithmetical SSE/AVX instructions are used in scalar version (process only one data element in vector registers).
Since your execution units are vector units, only a vectorized loop can use their full power.


Workaround
 - Try another compiler or update/tune your current one:
  * recompile with fassociative-math (included in Ofast or ffast-math) to extend loop vectorization to FP reductions.
 - Remove inter-iterations dependences from your loop and make it unit-stride:
  * If your arrays have 2 or more dimensions, check whether elements are accessed contiguously and, otherwise, try to permute loops accordingly:
C storage order is row-major: for(i) for(j) a[j][i] = b[j][i]; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) for(j) a[i][j] = b[i][j]; (fast, stride 1)<<image_row_maj>>
  * If your loop streams arrays of structures (AoS), try to use structures of arrays instead (SoA):
for(i) a[i].x = b[i].x; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) a.x[i] = b.x[i]; (fast, stride 1)



      6.1.10.1.3  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found no such bottlenecks but see expert reports for more complex bottlenecks.




      6.1.10.1.4  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.10.1.5  -  Slow data structures access
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected data structures (typically arrays) that cannot be efficiently read/written

Details
 - Constant unknown stride: 2 occurrence(s)
Non-unit stride (uncontiguous) accesses are not efficiently using data caches


Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)



      6.1.10.1.6  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in scalar mode (one at a time).



      6.1.10.1.7  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 8 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 4: addition or subtraction
 - 3: multiply
 - 1: divide
The binary loop is loading 116 bytes (14 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 8 bytes (1 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.10.1.8  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.06 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.


      6.1.10.1.9  -  Unroll opportunity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loop is potentially data access bound.

Workaround
Unroll your loop if trip count is significantly higher than target unroll factor and if some data references are common to consecutive iterations. This can be done manually. Or by recompiling with -funroll-loops and/or -floop-unroll-and-jam. Or with the unroll (resp. unroll_and_jam) directive on top of the inner (resp. surrounding) loop. You can enforce an unroll factor: #pragma GCC unroll N




      6.1.10.2  -  Path 2
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warnings:
Detected a function call instruction: ignoring called function instructions.
Rerun with --follow-calls=append to include them to analysis  or with --follow-calls=inline to simulate inlining.
3% of peak computational performance is used (1.13 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.10.2.1  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is probably not vectorized.
Only 16% of vector register length is used (average across all SSE/AVX instructions).
By vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 16.00 to 8.00 cycles (2.00x speedup).

Details
Store and arithmetical SSE/AVX instructions are used in scalar version (process only one data element in vector registers).
Since your execution units are vector units, only a vectorized loop can use their full power.


Workaround
 - Try another compiler or update/tune your current one:
  * recompile with fassociative-math (included in Ofast or ffast-math) to extend loop vectorization to FP reductions.
 - Remove inter-iterations dependences from your loop and make it unit-stride:
  * If your arrays have 2 or more dimensions, check whether elements are accessed contiguously and, otherwise, try to permute loops accordingly:
C storage order is row-major: for(i) for(j) a[j][i] = b[j][i]; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) for(j) a[i][j] = b[i][j]; (fast, stride 1)<<image_row_maj>>
  * If your loop streams arrays of structures (AoS), try to use structures of arrays instead (SoA):
for(i) a[i].x = b[i].x; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) a.x[i] = b.x[i]; (fast, stride 1)



      6.1.10.2.2  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance is limited by execution of divide and square root operations (the divide/square root unit is a bottleneck).

By removing all these bottlenecks, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 16.00 to 14.00 cycles (1.14x speedup).


Workaround
 - Reduce the number of division or square root instructions:
  * If denominator is constant over iterations, use reciprocal (replace x/y with x*(1/y)). Check precision impact. This will be done by your compiler with ffast-math or Ofast
 - Check whether you really need double precision. If not, switch to single precision to speedup execution





      6.1.10.2.3  -  Expensive FP math instructions/calls
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected performance impact from expensive FP math instructions/calls.
By removing/reexpressing them, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 16.00 to 14.00 cycles (1.14x speedup).


      6.1.10.2.4  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.10.2.5  -  CALL instructions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected function call instructions.


Details
Calling (and then returning from) a function prevents many compiler optimizations (like vectorization), breaks control flow (which reduces pipeline performance) and executes extra instructions to save/restore the registers used inside it, which is very expensive (dozens of cycles). Consider to inline small functions.
 - fmin@plt: 2 occurrences<<list_path_2_call_1>>



      6.1.10.2.6  -  Slow data structures access
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected data structures (typically arrays) that cannot be efficiently read/written

Details
 - Constant unknown stride: 2 occurrence(s)
 - Irregular (variable stride) or indirect: 1 occurrence(s)
Non-unit stride (uncontiguous) accesses are not efficiently using data caches


Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)
 - Try to remove indirect accesses. If applicable, precompute elements out of the innermost loop.



      6.1.10.2.7  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in scalar mode (one at a time).



      6.1.10.2.8  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 18 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 7: addition or subtraction
 - 7: multiply
 - 4: divide
The binary loop is loading 244 bytes (30 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 48 bytes (6 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.10.2.9  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.06 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.


      6.1.10.2.10  -  Unroll opportunity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loop is potentially data access bound.

Workaround
Unroll your loop if trip count is significantly higher than target unroll factor and if some data references are common to consecutive iterations. This can be done manually. Or by recompiling with -funroll-loops and/or -floop-unroll-and-jam. Or with the unroll (resp. unroll_and_jam) directive on top of the inner (resp. surrounding) loop. You can enforce an unroll factor: #pragma GCC unroll N




      6.1.10.3  -  Path 3
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3% of peak computational performance is used (1.09 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.10.3.1  -  Code clean check
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected a slowdown caused by scalar integer instructions (typically used for address computation).
By removing them, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 7.33 to 4.83 cycles (1.52x speedup).

Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)



      6.1.10.3.2  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is probably not vectorized.
Only 15% of vector register length is used (average across all SSE/AVX instructions).
By vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 7.33 to 2.00 cycles (3.67x speedup).

Details
Store and arithmetical SSE/AVX instructions are used in scalar version (process only one data element in vector registers).
Since your execution units are vector units, only a vectorized loop can use their full power.


Workaround
 - Try another compiler or update/tune your current one:
  * recompile with fassociative-math (included in Ofast or ffast-math) to extend loop vectorization to FP reductions.
 - Remove inter-iterations dependences from your loop and make it unit-stride:
  * If your arrays have 2 or more dimensions, check whether elements are accessed contiguously and, otherwise, try to permute loops accordingly:
C storage order is row-major: for(i) for(j) a[j][i] = b[j][i]; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) for(j) a[i][j] = b[i][j]; (fast, stride 1)<<image_row_maj>>
  * If your loop streams arrays of structures (AoS), try to use structures of arrays instead (SoA):
for(i) a[i].x = b[i].x; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) a.x[i] = b.x[i]; (fast, stride 1)



      6.1.10.3.3  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found no such bottlenecks but see expert reports for more complex bottlenecks.




      6.1.10.3.4  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.10.3.5  -  Slow data structures access
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected data structures (typically arrays) that cannot be efficiently read/written

Details
 - Constant unknown stride: 2 occurrence(s)
Non-unit stride (uncontiguous) accesses are not efficiently using data caches


Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)



      6.1.10.3.6  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in scalar mode (one at a time).



      6.1.10.3.7  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 8 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 4: addition or subtraction
 - 3: multiply
 - 1: divide
The binary loop is loading 120 bytes (15 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 8 bytes (1 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.10.3.8  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.06 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.


      6.1.10.3.9  -  Unroll opportunity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loop is potentially data access bound.

Workaround
Unroll your loop if trip count is significantly higher than target unroll factor and if some data references are common to consecutive iterations. This can be done manually. Or by recompiling with -funroll-loops and/or -floop-unroll-and-jam. Or with the unroll (resp. unroll_and_jam) directive on top of the inner (resp. surrounding) loop. You can enforce an unroll factor: #pragma GCC unroll N




      6.1.10.4  -  Path 4
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warnings:
Detected a function call instruction: ignoring called function instructions.
Rerun with --follow-calls=append to include them to analysis  or with --follow-calls=inline to simulate inlining.
3% of peak computational performance is used (1.13 out of 32.00 FLOP per cycle (GFLOPS @ 1GHz))

      6.1.10.4.1  -  Vectorization
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your loop is probably not vectorized.
Only 16% of vector register length is used (average across all SSE/AVX instructions).
By vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 16.00 to 8.00 cycles (2.00x speedup).

Details
Store and arithmetical SSE/AVX instructions are used in scalar version (process only one data element in vector registers).
Since your execution units are vector units, only a vectorized loop can use their full power.


Workaround
 - Try another compiler or update/tune your current one:
  * recompile with fassociative-math (included in Ofast or ffast-math) to extend loop vectorization to FP reductions.
 - Remove inter-iterations dependences from your loop and make it unit-stride:
  * If your arrays have 2 or more dimensions, check whether elements are accessed contiguously and, otherwise, try to permute loops accordingly:
C storage order is row-major: for(i) for(j) a[j][i] = b[j][i]; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) for(j) a[i][j] = b[i][j]; (fast, stride 1)<<image_row_maj>>
  * If your loop streams arrays of structures (AoS), try to use structures of arrays instead (SoA):
for(i) a[i].x = b[i].x; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) a.x[i] = b.x[i]; (fast, stride 1)



      6.1.10.4.2  -  Execution units bottlenecks
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance is limited by execution of divide and square root operations (the divide/square root unit is a bottleneck).

By removing all these bottlenecks, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 16.00 to 14.17 cycles (1.13x speedup).


Workaround
 - Reduce the number of division or square root instructions:
  * If denominator is constant over iterations, use reciprocal (replace x/y with x*(1/y)). Check precision impact. This will be done by your compiler with ffast-math or Ofast
 - Check whether you really need double precision. If not, switch to single precision to speedup execution





      6.1.10.4.3  -  Expensive FP math instructions/calls
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected performance impact from expensive FP math instructions/calls.
By removing/reexpressing them, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 16.00 to 14.17 cycles (1.13x speedup).


      6.1.10.4.4  -  FMA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of both ADD/SUB and MUL operations.

Workaround
 - Recompile with march=graniterapids.
CQA target is Granite_Rapids_ad (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Granite Rapids) but specialization flags are -march=x86-64
 - Try to change order in which elements are evaluated (using parentheses) in arithmetic expressions containing both ADD/SUB and MUL operations to enable your compiler to generate FMA instructions wherever possible.
For instance a + b*c is a valid FMA (MUL then ADD).
However (a+b)* c cannot be translated into an FMA (ADD then MUL).





      6.1.10.4.5  -  CALL instructions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected function call instructions.


Details
Calling (and then returning from) a function prevents many compiler optimizations (like vectorization), breaks control flow (which reduces pipeline performance) and executes extra instructions to save/restore the registers used inside it, which is very expensive (dozens of cycles). Consider to inline small functions.
 - fmin@plt: 2 occurrences<<list_path_4_call_1>>



      6.1.10.4.6  -  Slow data structures access
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detected data structures (typically arrays) that cannot be efficiently read/written

Details
 - Constant unknown stride: 2 occurrence(s)
 - Irregular (variable stride) or indirect: 1 occurrence(s)
Non-unit stride (uncontiguous) accesses are not efficiently using data caches


Workaround
 - Try to reorganize arrays of structures to structures of arrays
 - Consider to permute loops (see vectorization gain report)
 - Try to remove indirect accesses. If applicable, precompute elements out of the innermost loop.



      6.1.10.4.7  -  Type of elements and instruction set
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21 SSE or AVX instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on double precision FP elements in scalar mode (one at a time).



      6.1.10.4.8  -  Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The binary loop is composed of 18 FP arithmetical operations:
 - 7: addition or subtraction
 - 7: multiply
 - 4: divide
The binary loop is loading 248 bytes (31 double precision FP elements).
The binary loop is storing 48 bytes (6 double precision FP elements).


      6.1.10.4.9  -  Arithmetic intensity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arithmetic intensity is 0.06 FP operations per loaded or stored byte.


      6.1.10.4.10  -  Unroll opportunity
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loop is potentially data access bound.

Workaround
Unroll your loop if trip count is significantly higher than target unroll factor and if some data references are common to consecutive iterations. This can be done manually. Or by recompiling with -funroll-loops and/or -floop-unroll-and-jam. Or with the unroll (resp. unroll_and_jam) directive on top of the inner (resp. surrounding) loop. You can enforce an unroll factor: #pragma GCC unroll N





[MAQAO] Info: STOP THE REPORT GENERATION
[MAQAO] Info: 
[MAQAO] Info: If your application produces files, they can be found in directory "/beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/178-661-4073/intel/CloverLeaf2.0-CXX/run/oneview_runs/defaults/gcc/oneview_run_1786614749"
[MAQAO] Info: 
